Talk:Lynndie England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Lynndie England is part of WikiProject KYOVA Region, a project which aims to coordinate work for and expand coverage of the Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia "tri-state" region. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join or engage in discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Military work group.

Contents

[edit] War criminal

She doesn't need to be convicted by the Bush regime to be considered a war criminal (the US-American regime usually don't persecute its war criminals in any event). What the pictures are showing is clearly defined as war crimes in the Geneva conventions, and she is absolutely considered a war criminal by most of the world.

  • Which is just a way of saying "seems like war crimes to Jeez." Find someone to attribute the claim to and quote them. You may have to wait a day or so until some columnist says it. She's in fact unlikely to ever be charged as a war criminal, and she's certainly not one until she's convicted of being one. - Nunh-huh 00:37, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
    • The New York Times (May 7, page A12), in an article titled "Red Cross Says That for Months It Complained of Iraq Prison Abuses to the U.S.," reported: "Legal experts said this week that the United States could be obligated to try soldiers for war crimes." The next two paragraphs quoted Prof. Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School about the Geneva Conventions. Based on the Times article, if nothing else, I think we're justified in alluding to the "war crimes" issue as a possibility, but our article should also note that England hasn't yet been charged with war crimes or anything else. JamesMLane 14:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
    • My mistake, she has now been charged. Nevertheless, the Army says she's not in custody. Edit accordingly. JamesMLane 15:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
  • PERSECUTE?! I should certainly HOPE not! -132.183.159.77

No, it's about what is described as war crimes in the Geneva conventions. Humilating and degrading enemy prisoners=war crimes. It's not more difficult than that. Certainly she don't need to be convicted by her own country to be considered a war criminal. Many war criminals during history were not convicted. And if they were, they were often "convicted" by their enemies. Many people are described as war criminals in Wikipedia, although they were not convicted by their country, e.g. Soviet, Germany etc. -(unsigned)

  • Did the events occur during a war, or an occupation? Were the prisoners who were maltreated prisoners of war? Were they soldiers? Civilians? Does it matter to you? "War criminal" is being used here simply as an epithet, not a carrier of meaning. - Nunh-huh 01:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
I would argue that until the transfer of power this qualifies as an occupation. In addition numerous US officials have plainly stated that these prisoners are covered by the geneva convention. I think the article is accurate as it is right now stating that she's "widely considered" a war criminal. --Starx 04:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Iraq has never surrendered. The Iraqis are doing military resistance. War is war, also in Iraq. And war crimes is war crimes, even if committed by Americans.

A while ago I added the sentences about the opinions of some legal experts and the basis for considering her a war criminal under the Geneva Conventions. Those points can be sourced and defended as NPOV. To say that she's "widely considered" a war criminal goes way beyond that. "Widely" by whom? I personally think the term is justified but I suspect that a poll of all Americans would give something like 90% denying it. (A poll of Iraqis would produce different results.) Unless someone can cite objective data in favor of this assertion, I can't see how the "widely considered" line is NPOV. JamesMLane 06:31, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Saying "by some considered" doesn't justify presenting this "war criminal" allegation this way. "Considered by some to be an innocent scapegoat" would also be correct, and would probably describe the sentiments of more Americans than "by some considered a war criminal." You could probably even find enough yahoos to justify "considered by some a hero." I see no reason why one particular POV about England (even though it happens to be my POV) should get special prominence. Even the article on O. J. Simpson doesn't say in the first paragraph that he's "by some considered" to have committed the murders. Without shoving this particular POV about England down the reader's throat, the article presents the specifics of the charges against her, and the legal basis for a charge of war crimes. It's not like anything is being suppressed. JamesMLane

In my opinion, facts are not POVs. The depicted actions are described as war crimes in the Geneva conventions. Anyway, most people, at least outside the US, consider her a war criminal and it ought to be adressed. That's the reason we have an article dealing with her! / Elizabeth
If A, B and C agree she's a war criminal, then I agree that reporting that opinion is to state a fact and isn't POV. My point is that the same could be said of reporting the fact that D, E and F think she's a scapegoat, not to mention wacko G who thinks England should be put in charge of Abu Ghraib so that all the Iraqi prisoners can be treated like that. It's not neutral to select one of these POV's and give it such exceptional prominence, calling her acts war crimes before we've even said what the acts are. As for international opinion, I doubt that most people consider her a war criminal, simply because most people don't think in those terms. They think her acts were abhorrent and she should be punished. I'd guess only a minority of the people in any country could give a halfway satisfactory answer to the question, "What are the Geneva Conventions?" JamesMLane 05:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Other people please chime in -- It's silly for Elizabeth and me to just keep changing it back and forth. In the interest of trying to get beyond that stage, I'm temporarily leaving in a version I consider blatantly unacceptable. What do others think? If we're leaving in this particular POV, should we say "considered by some a war criminal and considered by others an innocent scapegoat"? (I'm not recommending that. My preference is to say nothing of this sort in the intro paragraph and to present the legal argument later, as per my edit of May 8 based on the New York Times article.) JamesMLane 05:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
You guys appear to be on the verge of a revert war, which is alternative silly or amusing, especially considering that you also appear to agree that she's indeed a war criminal. Both of you need to agree not no touch that introductory paragraph again. I don't know what the current state of the article is, nor do I care (I got to the talk page from my watchlist). If other people want to edit the article in either direction, fine. If they, too, get involved in a quasi-revert-war with a fourth person, they too will have to stop editing the introductory paragraph. Unless we all agree to something like this, someone will sooner or later ask an admin to protect the page in order to stop your wrangling over the introductory paragraph. — Miguel 16:29, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
Miguel, I agree that a revert war should be avoided, which is why I said I would temporarily stop reverting. What occurred to me since then is that the "war crimes" issue is already addressed where it really belongs, under Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. Lynndie England has gotten a lot of media attention, but the analysis of whether she committed war crimes isn't significantly different from the analysis as to several other accused soldiers. What if we drop the "war criminal" reference in the introductory graf; under "Charges," leave in the details of what she's actually been charged with so far; and under a subhead like "Possible war crimes charges" include a cross-reference? It would read something like, "For a discussion of the possibility of war crimes charges against England or any of the other soldiers involved, see the article on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal." The reference to the Geneva Conventions should be moved to that article, which currently mentions only the UN's Convention Against Torture. Does this solution seem reasonable? JamesMLane 10:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
The thing is her status as a scapegoat bears no relevance on her status as a war criminal. Her defence team has said that she was ordered to perform these actions. That, along with the pictures, shows that she did in fact commit these acts. The geneva convention clearly states that a) those actions are punishable as war crimes, and b) following orders does not relieve one of that responsibility. I don't think most people think of it in terms of war crimes but they are war crimes. I think it's a complicated issue and I think it deserves mention in the article. Those two statements lead me logicaly to conclude that it should have it's own section. I think once that section is fully developed this editing armwrestle will be irrelevent. --Starx 05:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Switching from "widely considered" to "considered by some" is weaseling out of POV, which is not NPOV. Just say that she has been indicted or whatever is accurate at the time of writing and let the reader decide for themselves. — Miguel 06:01, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

Wow, she's a real-life dominatrix.  :) Andy5 17:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

To many people who are old enough to remember 30¢ a gallon galsline, and the pathetic response of congress to the Arab oil embargo, Lynndie England's actions can be seen as getting one back for the USA. Weak, but the only response to the embargo from the USA since 1973.

For all their horrible faults, none of that Abu Ghraib gang belong in the War criminals category. Come on folks! These people humiliated some of the crooks locked up in Abu Ghraib. How can that even compare to Adolf Eichmann?
The War criminal category currently has a few dozen people listed. You'd have to get into the hundreds of thousands of truly horrific war criminals before you start running into anyone who's done something as relatively tame as Lynndie England.
Lynndie England? She posed for a couple pictures! Illegal? Sure. Another Adolf Eichmann? Be serious.
When I first saw this I was going to delete it out of hand until I saw this stuff here. I am truly stunned. Maybe this is Jihadpedia at its lowest but I doubt we've hit bottom yet.
In that sense, I'm wondering if we should keep it for everyone to see how utterly ridiculous the "torture meme" has become. There must be some little corner in Hell where Adolf Eichmann is laughing.
-- Randy2063 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed her from the War criminal cat (twice). It turns out that she was not convicted under the War Crimes Act of 1996, and that means putting her in there requires making a personal judgement. I suppose it might disturb some that posing in a demeaning photo doesn't fit in the same category as actual genocide.
-- Randy2063 03:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidation of war crimes issue

By historical accident, we had this article about Lynndie England early on. The result was that the discussion of the war crimes angle became fragmented. This article discussed the Geneva Conventions, although all the soldiers charged could be considered to have violated those Conventions. The main article on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports discussed the UN's Convention Against Torture, but merely mentioned the Geneva Conventions as a "see also," and this article omitted the Convention Against Torture.

No one objected to the suggestion I made several days ago that the discussion be consolidated. Accordingly, all these issues are now addressed under Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports#Do the soldiers' actions constitute torture and/or war crimes?, with a cross-reference in this article. I made one exception, for the "defense of superior orders." Because England's mother specifically raised that point, in a quotation in this article, it's of particular relevance to the England article to leave in the reference to the Nuremberg Charter, although it's also now discussed in the main article as well. JamesMLane 06:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gender bias?

There's been a lot of good work done on this page over the past few days, and it looks like the article will survive Vfd. However, how come no one's felt the need yet to hack out a stub on Charles Graner or that "Chip" guy? Hmmm... –Hajor 17:13, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. And I'd like to say, that it's highly symptomatic that someone want this article deleted and have listed it for deletion. I suppose some minor groups would want to have articles documenting Soviet and Nazi crimes deleted as well. However, Wikipedia ought to document all crimes, also the American ones. /J

[edit] Picture copyright

The first picture says "from New York Times". Could it be copyvio? Andris 03:09, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

The NYT didn't take the photo, they just published it. The question is, was it taken by the government (as possibly indicated by the uniform)? If so, it is in the public domain. If not, it is a copyright violation unless used with permission.
It might also be a private photo obtained from England's family, in which case the question is whether or not the NYT obtained exclusive rights to the picture, or something. Does the NYT source article give a photo credit? — Miguel 03:32, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
Found NYT, it says "relaxing in her parents home". Not clear who has the rights, but likely not a goverment photo. I'm tagging it as copyvio. Andris 03:44, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
PFC England
PFC England
This picture looks like an official US Army photo, so perhaps it should be used as a replacement.--Eloquence* 03:25, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

The original source of the picture is England's family. Maybe her sister took it. According to the site I got it from (forget), the source was the New York Times. It's unclear, but maybe the Times bought the photo from the family, in which case they may "own" the rights to it. Even so, its still open to fair use by us. If not, then it was given permission by family to run it, and agian its fair use, since shes is a public person now, and that photo is unique enough (considering the nature of the others) that we can use it. Should another similar picture show up, which may serve better - then we can use that instead. -Stevertigo 05:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Copyright or not, the photo is a blatant POV issue. Showing someone in an Army uniform in front of the American flag has definite connotations of heroism to Americans (cf. the opening scene in the film "Patton") Philwelch 03:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legal arguments on wikipedia

User:Delirium comments on an edit (=Perspectives= others have pointed out the "just following orders" thing, it's not an argument we're making as Wikipedia). I do think it is appropriate to make an argument like that in an encyclopedia article. After all, in the Abu Ghraib prison article there is a whole section discussing whether or not the alleged abuses constitute torture under international law, that is not and need not be attributed to "some commentators". Miguel

I don't think it is—we should describe neutrally in a documentary tone, not say things like "so-and-so said this, but he's wrong", because we're not authorities on history or international law, but simply documenting people who are. --Delirium 08:38, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

For the record, I've unlisted this page from Votes for deletion as there was clear consensus to keep. You can see the discussion here. I originally nominated it when this page was just a stub, but it has grown a lot since then and England has become a kind of figurehead (or scapegoat?) for the scandal, so I guess it's OK to keep it.

I still disapprove of having pages on every single suspect, especially as the people who we will write most about will be the ones who are most prominent in the pictures. The really clever, sadistic tormenters will not have have their faces shown in front of the cameras, nor will the people who ordered or tolerated these abuses in order to better "interrogate" the prisoners.--Eloquence* 03:17, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

If there is a court case which deserves to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it is nothing extraordinary to have a page on each of the defendants. On the other hand, if there is nothing specific to say about one or more of the defendants, it is appropriate for their page to redirect to the court case's page. One can only hope that the clever, sadistic tormenters and those who "suggested" to the soldiers that they "soften up" the prisoners will be mentioned in the court proceedings, and so will end up having pages of their own. — Miguel 03:30, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

[edit] "Conspiracy"

With regard to the comments of England's mother: using the word conspiracy is inflammatory and prejudical. Comments?

Well, that's what her mom said, can't change other peoples POV. The article clearly states that that was said by her mother. People know the comment and they know the source. They can decide for themselves whether to believe it or not. --Starx 20:41, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

WRT deleting the "conspiracy" section; making it NPOV does not equate with outright deletion, especially when a source is cited. - Hephaestos|§ 04:11, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Perspectives

Is there a reason why this part of the "Perspectives" section was deleted?

England's sister, Jessica Klinestiver, said her sister was unfairly blamed for abuse. "I am very outraged because that's not like my sister to do anything like that at all," Klinestiver said.

-- Schnee 16:51, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


The crimes of Lyndie England bear a remarkable similarity to the crimes of Irma Grese who was hanged for such crimes commited at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen during World War II.


I restored this section that was deleted because it was "Insulting to Lyndie England". The stories of Irma Grese and Lyndie England are remarkably similar, except for the punishments they received.

In what way are they "remarkably similar"? Equating England's actions to that of a Nazi war-criminal is too big a stretch. I'm removing it again.

Her view of the prisoners as "Less than Human" made it easier for her to justify the sexual humiliation, beatings and terrorizing prisoners with Dogs. She had numerous sexual relations with fellow prison guards.

Now who was i talkiing about? The stories are almost identicle except for the punishments these two recieved.


Restored Again.

The comparison sounds like propaganda and it violates Wikipedia:No original research, does it not? —kooo 11:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Having two "perspectives" from family members is blatant propaganda. The subject "Perspectives" gives the impression of differant viewpoints on her crimes. Two Family members viewpoints are biased and redundant.

The Irma Grese comparison is fair, they commited the same crimes. As Lynndie has pled guilty to these crimes, there is admission on her part of these actions.

I will change the title of the segmant to "Her Family Speaks Out", and move the Irma Grese refrence to links. People reading about Lynndie England should know of this simmilar case, and discrepancy in punishments.

[edit] Gaza Strip - Palestine "issue"

People have been reverting back and forth between Gaza Strip and Palestine as the identification of where Gaza City is. Could we please just leave both references in, so that any reader who wants to know more about where the desecration occurred will be able to find out? JamesMLane 08:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this as it is currently incorrect. There is presently no political entity with the designation "Palestine." The most neutral designation of the moment is Gaza City, Gaza Strip. 1:03PM, 18 May 2004 (PDT)

What about the Palestinian Authority? I don't see how mentioning both should be a problem. Or why not just shorten it to Gaza City by itself? --Starx 20:15, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

There's also no political entity with the designation "Gaza Strip." Therefore, deleting "Palestine" and replacing it with "Gaza Strip" doesn't improve the accuracy. At any rate, this article isn't about the political status of that area, which doesn't even border the country where Lynndie England gained notoriety. The purpose here is to help the reader get an idea of where the desecration occurred. Whether or not there's a political entity, there's a region (and Palestine is identified as a region in our article about it, which also notes that its political status is disputed). I agree with Starx that "Gaza City" by itself would be neutral, but as between the two neutral formulations, I prefer the one that's more helpful to the reader. JamesMLane 20:42, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Gaza Strip is a much more specific and neutral term than Palestine. Let's just say Gaza City, Gaza Strip and leave it at that. User:Neutrality
    • Not all people know where in the world the Gaza City is located. Palestine is a geographical name, and as James is pointing out, more helpful to the reader. We would prefer "Lucca, Italy" also, not just "Lucca", wouldn't we? If you consider the name "Palestine" offensive, let me remind you that a lot of Arabs could state that they consider the name "Israel" offensive and demand all references to "Israel" removed. Anyway, Gaza is legally a part of Palestine, which is not disputed by the UN. Elizabeth A 03:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree. "[[[Israel]]" describes the Gaza Strip just as well as "Palestine" would. But I wouldn't describe the Gaza Strip as part of Israel because it is a disputed territory. I think "Gaza City, Gaza Strip" is just fine. If a person does not know the [political status of Gaza or where it is, then they can always click on the hyperlink and read the Gaza article. If you want to put in how it's a disputed territory between the Palestians and Israel, go ahead. I just think "Palestine" is irrelevant and POV. User:Neutrality

First off, your both contributing to this little edit war, neither of you are any more or less a vandal then the other so lets not start calling each others edits vandalism, okay? Secondly, I'm gonna change it to just Gaza City. Why don't you two discuss this here on the talk page and come to an agreement about what you'd like it to say before changing the article. Go request moderation or something, just stop the back and forth. It's counterproductive. --Starx 03:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with Starx that the reverts accomplish nothing. Now that you've each seen each other's comments, I suggest again that you each considering ending the revert cycle by adopting "Gaza City, Gaza Strip, Palestine." I think it caters to the concerns each of you has expressed.
    - Neutrality, this article is about Lynndie England. The dispute about the political status of Gaza City has nothing to do with her or with her conduct at Abu Ghraib, so I don't see why you favor an edit that drags a mention of that issue into this article. The article on Palestine addresses the dispute. Therefore, the wikilink to "Palestine" covers it adequately for this article.
    - ElizabethA, thanks for agreeing with me that we should try to be helpful to the reader. I assume your view of Palestine is that it encompasses more than just the Gaza Strip. Therefore, the phrase "Gaza Strip, Palestine" pinpoints the location more informatively than the mere "Palestine," and is more helpful to the reader. JamesMLane 04:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Fine, so you continue to argue why Gaza Strip is better than Palestine, and ElizabethA continues to argue why Palestine is better than Gaza Strip, and neither of you will assess the neutral suggestions offered by Starx (use neither) or by me (use both). Apparently the prospects for reasonable mutual accommodation here as poor as they are among the principals in the Middle East. JamesMLane 13:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Starz's preposal: simply say Gaza City, Gaza Strip. Neutality.
      • That was not my proposal. My proposal was to say Gaza City with no mention of gaza strip or palestine. --Starx 01:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] categories for this article

There are currently no articles in category:prison other than this one. In cleaning up category:orphaned categories I've come across this article. There seems to be a fair amount of heat about the content of this article. I'd like to avoid similar heat about its categorization. I've added category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and would like to change this article's categorization to just category:U.S. Army soldiers and category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (the latter category is currently in category:abuse, category:2003 Iraq conflict, and category:US-Iraqi relations). I'm reasonably certain putting this article in category:torture, category:war criminals (which doesn't exist yet), etc. is not appropriate per wikipedia:categorisation of people. Before I make this change are there any violent objections? -- Rick Block 23:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

One of the external links is broken:

Rafał Pocztarski 22:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed it. Couldnt find it in the wayback machine, and I dont really know about google cache. If someone else does, it might be an useful link. —kooo 05:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guilty Plea

England has now announced she plans to plead guilty to the charges. I have attempted to make the necessary changes to the article as a result but it really needs at least one other person to check it through. We also need to be very careful that the article is NPOV. I reworded a section where England claimed she was only doing what she was told, as she has implicitly admitted this was not true this morning. However, I have not expressed my belief that her superiors' heads should also roll; that is clearly POV and not really appropriate for this article. Additionally, statements like 'last month', which were in this article before I cleaned it up, have no place here. This is meant to be an encyclopedia and all dates should be explicit, not implicit (except in quotes, obviously).

Anyway, she plans to enter this plea on Monday, so we should stay tuned. --Yamla 14:41, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

[edit] Mistreatment vs. torture

Cut from article:

The formal charges avoid the word "torture" although many commentators have so described her conduct.

Almost every account I've read in the liberal press (or heard on liberal radio & TV) repeatedly refers to the abuse as "torture".

The question is whether humiliation or stress are just as bad as real torture, but these accounts seem to want to deliberately erase any distinction between levels of abuse:

  1. taking out fingernails, amputating tongues or ears;
  2. prolonged beatings with whips that leave scars;
  3. putting a prisoner's head underwater until he nearly drowns;
  4. crushing testicles under the guard's shod foot;
  5. applying electric shock (of 24V DC or more) to genitals


Do you have a statistic for what amount of current that can be applied to a person's genitals before it is considered "torture"?

I'll assume that Less than 24V DC or 24V AC is considered "entertainment"


vs. making a prisoner think you might drop him from a helicopter, or let a dog bite him, or shock him if he lowers his arms; forcing naked prisoners to form a pyramid.

vs. pushing a prisoner down to the floor, making him walk or stand naked, transporting him in an aircraft while confined to a box the size of a coffin, chaining a prisoner by the feet and hands so he can't move.

Most people would see at least three distinct levels of abuse here, with only the first rising to the level of actual torture.

Thus there are two kinds of prisoner abuse: (1) regular mistreatment and (2) torture. America should punish soldiers who take it upon themselves to mistreat prisoners, but it MIGHT order them to mistreat them to get vital information. America is NOT allowed to order torture, so anyone following such an order would be disobeying a law; thus "he ordered me to cut the gook's ear off" or "the interrogator told me to shock his genitals" is no defense.

I want the article to avoid endorsing the liberal, anti-US-policy / anti-Bush usage of the word torture. Instead, it should describe how (and why) some commentators have labelled the abuse and mistreatment as "torture". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions." (from Torture).
Are you implying that her actions do not clearly fill that definition? I think the formal charges avoid the word because it is possibly not a legal term. Please discuss the article, not what your (misinformative) opinion is about punishing people. —kooo 23:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
No, I am asserting (1) that the definition of "torture" is unclear and (2) that Bush opponents are deliberately exploiting this unclearness.
I divide the class the anti-Bush folks call "torture" into two distinct classes: (a) pain so great that everyone agrees it should be outlawed; (b) pain or discomfort great enough to extract confessions or maintain order, but which does not exceed standards approved by the U.S. government.
You can subdivide (a) into (i) really horrible stuff, as I mentioned above, like gouging out eyeballs, etc. - which Saddam routinely did - and which is one of the prime reasons Bush kicked him out of power; and (ii) bad stuff that only the US would ever convict its own soldiers for daring to do - which is what the Pentagon investigation and the CBS photos were all about.
Bush opponents make two different mistakes - well, they do it in purpose, so they are really making two false arguments: First, they insist that ALL rough treatment (regardless of its level of severity) is "torture" under the definition you gave above. They manage to avoid any mention of determining whether it's SEVERE and thus deliberately conflate "rough interrogation" with "prisoner abuse". If you don't treat terrorists and national-less fighters as nicely as a American drunk-driving suspect, it's mistreatment to them. Second (and similarly), they insist that all mistreatment is "torture". No matter how mild the pain or fear or embarrassment is, if it's inflicted for the purpose of interrogation or even to prevent mutiny / escape, it's "torture".
Now they are perfectly entitled to their POV. But it should not be treated as fact in the Wikipedia. It should clearly be marked as their POV. And "they" should be identified, as individuals by name, or by whatever group they fall into: Bush policy critics in general, or Democratic Party members, or leftists, and so on. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:47, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Do you think that saying the following would be fair: "Many commentators have described her conduct as torture, but others have avoided the word, possibly because it is not clear if the severity of her abuse fills the threshold of torture." If not, try to make something out of it, or name as clearly as possible what is wrong with it. I don't think it's a perfect sentence myself, not even that great English, but it's a starting point.
Of course there are many levels of severity for torture, but one does not need to pluck eyeballs out to justify the use of the word. Also, please, please do not use expressions like "only the US would ever convict". That just makes me think of the "One and only country under God"-view of the world. I am not going to reply to the off-topic parts of your posts. —kooo 04:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Lynndie was charged with mistreatment. That's what piling up naked prisoners in a pyramid is. The point is, the commentators don't want to make a distinction between mistreatment and real torture. They want a torture conviction, so they can make the US look bad. I didn't hear them clamoring for a revised definition of "torture" (q.v.) before this. If they're as appalled by torture as you seem to think, where is their outrage over what Saddam and his men did? They make what Lynndie and her mates did look like a fraternity prank. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Sir, you are very close to a personal attack. Please comment on the article, not on anything else. I do not think you understood what I said about legal terms earlier — here's an example: If someone kidnaps another person here, it's called "theft of freedom", not "kidnapping". Therefore she propably would not be charged for "torture" in any case, whatever she had done.
You didn't answer my question. Please at least write whomever you wish to name for using the word "torture", so we might possibly say "<whomever> has accepted it as 'torture'". You are not trying to deny that the word has been used? Although it might be arguable that it is not encyclopedic information. —kooo 00:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have re-added the original sentence to the article, because Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse clearly uses the word torture, even on the title. The title was decided by a vote. —kooo 08:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "unreleased" photos

as mentioned by the article, there are addicitional photos held by military or US goverment that are not published. Is there a legal channel to obtain these photos? Xah Lee 06:32, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Probably the access to information act. I assume this is already underway by human rights groups and news programs. Dowew 03:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hoods

Is anyone interested in the fact that the hoods covering the prisoners' heads look very much like standard sandbags familiar to all US soldiers? You shovel a few scoops of sand or dirt into them with your handy "entrenching tool" and build walls with them.

Also, what part of what they did to the prisoners is the "mistreatment" part?

  • That they were hooded / blindfolded
  • That they were made to stand around in groups, naked
  • That women were allowed to view their nakedness
  • That soldiers posed for (what look like) personal snapshots with them - for their own amusement

For me, it's the personal amusement aspect that grates the most. Softening up prisoners for interrogation is one thing, but be serious about it. If you take pleasure in rough treatment, that in itself is tantamount to abuse - or can easily lead to it.

And what of the fact that ALL the accused US soldiers were from the same National Guard unit? Sounds like a failure of ethics training on the part of their commander. How could he (or she?) let them fool around like that? Why make some sergeant the fall guy?

I would never have tolerated this shit. (Excuse my french, but I was a soldier once: 2nd MP Company, Camp Casey, Korea 1982-1983). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commander's Role

I had no idea, when I wrote the comments above, that Gen. Janis Karpinski, Private England's commanding officer, had been punished for permitting the abuse. Amazing timing, eh?

I heard that the only reason they went so easy on Karpinski was that she was a holdover from the Clinton Administration, a sop to the feminists. It would have been unseemly to hold a woman to the same standards as a man, because that would thwart "affirmative action". What a crock. If they're not qualified, they shouldn't serve - period. The "affirmative" part of AA should be providing extra assistance to the underpriveleged or discriminated-against to get onto the playing field, but once on the playing field they should be treated the same as anyone else. (Yeah, I know, some people say the playing field itself is tilted, so that the only remedy is to have two sets of rules. But that opens up far too many opportunites for the unscrupulous to game the system.)

They sure did it quietly, though. If I hadn't seen the article by accident, it would have been months before I found out about it. Considering K was the highest-ranking officer to be disciplined, you'd think it would be trumpeted far and wide. I guess liberals just don't like to admit that women can be bad - in any way, at any thing. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, a single-rank demotion without a dishonourable discharge is definitely getting off easy. "A woman in power can be every bit as bad as a man", or words to that effect. --Deathphoenix 20:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy?

Graner and England were involved in a sexual relationship while in Iraq... Is this very important to the article? Piet 12:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. It was central to England's claim, rejected by the courts martial (though it may still play a role in sentencing), on how she was a compliant and willing tool of Granier while she committed her crimes. Her claim was that she was not responsible for her actions as a result. --Yamla 14:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I meant, does it have to be described as a sexual relationship rather than just relationship? Not that I'm puritan, it just seems superfluous. Piet 15:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. My understanding is that England having sex with Graner in front of prisoners was used as a mild form of maltreatment of those prisoners. Furthermore, the nature of the relationship was cited by England's defence team during her trial and sentencing. --Yamla 15:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] England Defense Fund?

The External "England Defense Fund" Link at the bottom of the page leads to a 404 Error (the site no longer exists). I don't know if I'm missing something, but I suggest taking it out.

[edit] Birthplace

66.208.15.100 just changed England's birthplace to Flatwoods from Ashland, Kentucky. This change was cited. However, (iirc) it was cited with links to two identical articles. Furthermore, the article says that England spent the first two years of her life in Flatwoods, not that she was born in Flatwoods. I was born in Portsmouth, England, but spent the first six years of my life in Fareham, England. As the paragraph in question is talking about where she was born, I believe my cited reference, even though it is not from a U.S. source, is more likely to be correct. That is to say, the anonymous user's source was not incorrect, it just didn't talk about England's birthplace. --Yamla 23:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're both wrong. Lynndie England was not born in either place. She was born in Rowan County, Kentucky, but grew up in Flatwoods, where the England family has lived for generations. I know that the street she grew up in was named for her family. Back when the story first broke in the spring of 2004, there was a lot of television reporting done from Flatwoods by all the networks, and this was all explained. I happen to be an American as well, and I will have to say that I have never heard her mentioned anywhere in connection with Ashland. I do know that Ashland is the nearest actual city, about 5 miles from Flatwoods, and some reporters would say "Flatwoods near Ashland", to help viewers from far away place Flatwoods. But I never heard any mention of any personal connection of Lynndie England's to Ashland. But that's neither here nor there if you're both interested in her birthplace, because, as I said, she wasn't BORN in EITHER place. She was born in Rowan County, two counties to the west, where her father had a railway job for a time. (All of this hasn't been gone into so much by the news media this time around, but back in the spring of 2004, when Lynndie England first became known, there was, as I said, considerable reporting done on her background.) Go to this site [1], get a free guest pass, enter surname "England", click through to the sixth group of alphabetized first names, which brings you to the 1970s and 1980s births, and you will find both Lynndie and her elder sister Jessica. -- user from Washington, D.C. 70.21.51.149 08:34, 3 October 2005 (UT

If you do register with that site or get a "guest pass", be sure to use a disposable e-mail address, as the volume of spam to that address will increase dramatically. --84.164.209.102 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that Ashland, KY AND Ashland, WV are both 135 miles away from Flatwoods, WV? My sources are MapQuest and my own residency in Beckley, WV. 141.153.25.234 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)KLV

[edit] Why not remove outdated information?

I'm new here, didn't realize the convention is to discuss major changes before making them. On Dec. 31, 2005, I deleted several paragraphs because they were outdated, then someone restored them a few hours later. (Oddly, the record of both of these revisions has now disappeared from the history.)

Anyway, here is a sample of what I propose for deletion: "Fort Bragg spokesperson Jackie Thomas informed the media that July 12 is the new date for the trial, which will begin with an Article 32 hearing..." Not only does it refer in the future tense to an event that is now in the past, it also provides an excruciating level of detail. Another nearby paragraph says she "is not currently confined," which was no doubt true when written, but as of this date she is in prison in San Diego. KirkPete 15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)KirkPete

[edit] Serious Lack of NPOV

There are several problems with the article in its current state, but I think the biggest is the section called 'Her Family and Friends Make Excuses'. A more neutral title would be 'Quotes from Family and Friends'. Even so, the section seems largely to be a way to paint England in a negative way. The quote from Colleen Kesner seems completely irrelevant - it's just a quote from some woman in a bar near where England grew up. It seems only to have been included to suggest racism on England's part. The sections commenting on the Geneva convention likewise would seem to have little do with the article. Lastly, the final two sentences noting what she "failed to comment on" are nothing but editorialising.

Therefore, I Suggest that the section be renamed Quotes from the Family and that the text is trimmed back to:

Defending England, her mother Terrie said: "They were just doing stupid kid things, pranks." and that according to her daughter, "Nothing happened which wasn't ordered by higher up. They are trying to pin all of this on the lower ranks. My daughter was just following orders. I think there's a conspiracy."

I shall make the change shortly if there are no serious objections. TimTim 13:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impact on Pop Culture

We need to make a part of the article that deals with Lynndie England's impact on pop culture and in the media since almost everyone from Saturday Night Live to Bill Maher has parodied, poke fun at, or mentioned her. Also because the bit in the article about The Rolling Stones writting a song about her doesn't belong in the "Controversy over the Photographs". The Fading Light 9:18, 31 March 2006

[edit] Irma Grese

I removed the link to Irma Grese - the link claimed that she was 'convicted of similar crimes', but I think that's inaccurate. Sure, they were both female soldiers convicted of abusing inmates, but Irma Grese seems to have gone much further in her abuse than Ms England did. The comparison doesn't seem valid to me. TimTim 12:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No punishment?

Damn this woman and her counterpart. I would've kept the charges against her, and then handed her over to Iraqis to do what they want. --Yancyfry jr

[edit] Pics of her having sex with Graner

When will they be released? Thanks. (And when they are, should they be included in the article?)--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 11:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, pics of them having sex should NOT be published in the article. If there was an article on you, do you think we should have a picture of you having sex with someone? You also requested pictures of child porn in that article. --Matt57 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But they are highly notable as they are part of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse photos.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/y/n/Talk%7ELynndie_England_0299.html"